Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(150,352 posts)

42. I agree that it is all up in the air for what the SCOTUS will do

Wed Feb 19, 2025, 08:48 AM

Feb 19

as they are usually predictable, but not always. It will depend on how much they think their livelihoods are secure (not very) within the world that they created by unleashing this monster.

Based on the other post in this thread (taken from the ruling text) - apparently there is also the issue of the states requesting a "TRO" (for an "emergency" ) versus requesting an "Injunction", which would basically do the same thing but for a longer term.

The time it takes to go through the courts can vary too and it ends up being the luck of the draw to get immediate stays and those who have the resources to avail of the delays ARE what criminal justice reform advocates continually and endlessly decry.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge denies request to temporarily block DOGE's mass firings, access to data [View all] BumRushDaShow Feb 18 OP

Even judges are paid off or they are running scared now angrychair Feb 18 #1

She explained the issue in her questioning yesterday BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #4

Right... so there's no recourse until slightlv Feb 18 #11

See this post below BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #14

That's the part that doesn't make sense angrychair Feb 18 #21

"me making that case by myself isn't going to help anyone else." BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #30

Not true with this judge, they need to make a case. we can do it Feb 18 #5

She's a highly respected Obama appointee Polybius Feb 19 #29

No chance of an appeal? Baitball Blogger Feb 18 #2

They can appeal BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #3

Not really FBaggins Feb 18 #18

I think this explains the strategy BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #20

i read the descision moonshinegnomie Feb 18 #6

How can losing your most sensitive financial info to teenage Nazis be "undone"? SunSeeker Feb 18 #9

Gods, SunSeeker, this is what I'm zeroed in on! slightlv Feb 18 #12

The problem is that they can't demonstrate any of that is happening FBaggins Feb 18 #19

Even reading this private information is illegal. SunSeeker Feb 18 #23

Except we don't know that's happening either FBaggins Feb 18 #25

Yes we do. Miller has explictly said they're looking for "fraud," like "illegal aliens" claiming "child tax credits." SunSeeker Feb 18 #28

They don't have to look at individual returns in order to do that FBaggins Feb 19 #34

OFFS, everything DOGE is doing is "prohibitively inefficient." SunSeeker Feb 19 #35

Can i ask this question? Somebody is supplying something to these AG's. My question is could this judge bluestarone Feb 19 #45

I'm not sure that someone is supplying information to the AGs FBaggins Feb 19 #46

TY. This many AG's should KNOW what is needed for Christ sake. bluestarone Feb 19 #47

shit shit shit shit Genevra Feb 18 #7

Here is the final paragraph of her order: in2herbs Feb 18 #8

TY for this. bluestarone Feb 18 #10

"Don't give up hope." It's hard to give up what is already gone. n/t elocs Feb 18 #13

The state AGs may have been denied a TRO but they are pursuing an injunction, and this was in2herbs Feb 18 #15

Just a way to drag it out angrychair Feb 18 #22

Thanks. The details are important. defacto7 Feb 19 #43

Biggest line of BS from a judge moniss Feb 18 #16

She is the opposite of Loose Cannon BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #17

However it is nonsensical to say there is no imminent harm apparent. moniss Feb 18 #27

In this case, the "STATE" is NOT the same as an individual "person" - it's those unique "legal definitions" BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #31

I believe that the moniss Feb 19 #32

Unfortunately this is how the courts operate BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #33

Oh dear God, please do not direct people to take the word of anonymous self-appointed legal eagles. SunSeeker Feb 19 #36

Look - I have close family members who ARE lawyers BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #38

Please do not asset you know better than others because your relative is a lawyer. SunSeeker Feb 19 #39

I addressed the issue of "legal definitions" BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #40

"Legal definitions" aren't at issue here. SunSeeker Feb 19 #41

I agree that it is all up in the air for what the SCOTUS will do BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #42

Coward Nululu Feb 18 #24

Oh, for fuck's sake!! FOURTEEN Attorneys General couldn't come up with Scrivener7 Feb 18 #26

Sounds to me like she was being much too strict on what is required to "clearly show" irreparable harm. SunSeeker Feb 19 #37

It's not like she's shown herself a fan of this mob. She'd have granted it if she could. Scrivener7 Feb 19 #44

Of course she's not a Trump fan. But she is a human being subject to pressure. SunSeeker Feb 19 #48

The Court's Decisions Are Absolutely Worthless BlueKota Feb 19 #49